Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court refused bail to three juveniles accused in a sexual assault case involving a visually impaired and specially abled minor girl, holding that their release would defeat the ends of justice. The Court emphasised that, even in cases involving children in conflict with the law, the reformative purpose of juvenile legislation cannot be considered in isolation and must be weighed against the seriousness of the allegations and the overall facts of the case.
The case stemmed from revision petitions filed by three juveniles challenging concurrent orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court refusing them bail. The prosecution case emerged after the Chairman of the Child Welfare Committee noticed a minor girl eating soil and suspected that she was pregnant. Subsequent inquiries revealed that the girl was visually impaired and specially abled, and allegations surfaced that she had been subjected to repeated sexual assault. The State maintained that the victim had become pregnant as a consequence of the abuse.
While the juveniles sought release on bail under the beneficial framework of the Juvenile Justice Act, the prosecution opposed the plea, contending that the allegations were grave and that the victim had identified the accused through their voices despite her visual disability. It was also pointed out that only 4 out of 19 witnesses had been examined and that release of the juveniles at that stage could adversely affect the course of justice.
Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal observed that although the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, is a welfare-oriented legislation intended to facilitate the reformation of children in conflict with law, courts cannot ignore the factual matrix of each case while deciding a bail request. The Court noted that the victim was a mentally challenged, blind minor girl who was found pregnant and had supported the prosecution's case during her testimony.
The Court recorded that the prosecutrix had identified all three juveniles by their voices and observed, "Prosecutrix has since been examined and has supported the prosecution's case, identifying the three CCLs by voice. The offence allegedly committed is grave and heinous and shakes the judicial conscience of the court." While reiterating that the seriousness of the accusation alone cannot be the sole ground for denial of bail, the Court concluded that, in the peculiar facts of the case, releasing the juveniles would "certainly defeat the ends of justice."
Consequently, the Court upheld the orders of the lower forums and dismissed the revision petitions.
Source PTI
Picture Source :
